Doe v. Mutual of Omaha Insurance’s Empirical Analysis
179 F.3d 557 · 1999
Citation profile
25 federal appellate · 7 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 59 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2021 · most notably Access Now, Inc. v. Southwest Airlines Co. (2004), PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin (2001)
25 federal appellate · 7 district · 2 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1012 (§ 2 of the McCarran-Ferguson Act) · 42 U.S.C. § 12101 (§ 2 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990) · 42 U.S.C. § 12182 (§ 302 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990) · 42 U.S.C. § 12201 (§ 501 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990)
Relies on Auer v. Robbins · Bragdon v. Abbott · United States Department of Treasury v. Fabe · Humana Inc. v. Mary Forsyth et al. · Doe v. Dekalb County School District
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 59 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a] camera store may not refuse to sell cameras to a disabled person, but it is not required to stock cameras specially designed for such persons,”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“core meaning of [section 302(a) of Title III of the ADA], plainly enough, is that the owner or operator of a store, hotel, restaurant, dentist’s office, travel agency, theater, Web site, or other facility (whether in physical space or in electronic space, that is open to the public cannot exclude disabled persons from entering the facility and, once in, from using the facility in the same way that the nondisabled do.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“plainly enough, ... that the owner or operator of a store, hotel, restaurant, dentist's office, travel agency, theater, Web site, or other facility (whether in physical space or in electronic space, ...) that is open to the public cannot exclude disabled persons from entering the facility and, once in, from using the facility in the same way that the nondisabled do.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.